Apple Hill Growers v. El Dorado Orchards, Inc. et al

Filing 63

ORDER re El Dorado Orchard's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 57 ) signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 04/28/2022 ORDERING parties to file an Amended Joint Statement by May 4, 2022. (Streeter, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

APPLE HILL GROWERS,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff/CounterDefendant,
v.
EL DORADO ORCHARDS, INC., et al.,

No. 2:17–cv–02085–TLN–CKD

ORDER
(ECF Nos. 57, 61)

Defendants/CounterClaimants.

17
18

Upon reviewing the Joint Statement regarding defendant El Dorado Orchards Inc.

19

(“EDO”)’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 61), see ECF No. 57, the court finds it necessary to

20

ORDER as follows:

21

1. Based on plaintiff’s counsel’s representation that she had insufficient time to contribute to

22

the Joint Statement, and the indication that the parties are close to independently resolving

23

many of the discovery disputes at issue in EDO’s motion to compel, the parties SHALL

24

file an Amended Joint Statement for EDO’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 57) by 5/4/2022.

25

a. By 5:00 PM on 5/2/2022, plaintiff’s counsel shall provide defense counsel with

26

her portion of the Amended Joint Statement – which should comprise at least

27

plaintiff’s complete position statements for each discovery dispute addressed in the

28

existing Joint Statement.
1

1

b. By 5/4/2022, defendant EDO shall file the Amended Joint Statement, in which it

2

may revise its contentions regarding the discovery disputes based on plaintiff’s

3

position statements.

4

c. The court encourages plaintiff and EDO to continue their meet and confer efforts

5

regarding these disputes. If in the process of preparing the Amended Joint

6

Statement, the parties are able to resolve or narrow certain disputes (as is hoped),

7

the Amended Joint Statement shall clearly identify which discovery requests have

8

been resolved or narrowed.

9

2. Further, based on the court’s preliminary review of the existing Joint Statement, the

10

Amended Joint Statement shall address the following matters (in the event these discovery

11

requests are not independently resolved):
a. Regarding EDO’s Interrogatory No. 5, plaintiff must clarify whether it is solely

12
13

seeking recovery of defendant’s profits, or whether it is also seeking recovery of

14

any damages, i.e., losses, suffered by plaintiff.

15

b. The parties appear to be approaching independent resolution of EDO’s Request for

16

Production (“RPD”) Nos. 8, 14-15, and 29. The Amended Joint Statement shall

17

clarify what, if anything, remains for the court to address regarding these RPDs.
i. For RPD Nos. 14-15, plaintiff must clarify whether it will produce all non-

18
19

privileged responsive documents, going back to the more limited time

20

frame of July 23, 2011.

21

c. Regarding RPD Nos. 27-28, defendant EDO must explain why plaintiff should be

22

required to download and produce the contents of its websites and social media

23

platforms if those materials are, as plaintiff argues, equally accessible to EDO.
d. Whether RPD No. 40 has now been resolved.

24
25

////

26

////

27

////

28

////
2

1

e. Based on defense counsel’s expressed willingness, the court preliminarily agrees

2

that any physical inspection of documents responsive to EDO’s RPDs should take

3

place at plaintiff’s counsel’s law offices in Sacramento, CA. Plaintiff must

4

identify a range of dates in the near future when such physical inspection may

5

occur. This physical inspection is not necessarily to the exclusion of electronic

6

production of the same materials.

7

Dated: April 28, 2022
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12

19, appl.2085

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3